I searched for "Bohemian" on Pexels.com for the thumbnail. Not sure what I'm trying to illustrate with this one. What can I say? I'm nervous. There are a lot of people in this coffee shop, so I'm rushing through the thumbnail-picking.
Photo by cottonbro from Pexels
No intro on this one either. Refer to The First 22 Pages.
...though art and science (for example: video games) have freedom, they are not autonomous. The artist and the scientist are also under the revelation of the Scriptures.
Francis Schaeffer claims the Reformation (modern) man cannot visualize this.
How can modern man 'not' visualize this, being "infiltrated" by a concept of determinism?
...man cannot be explained as totally determined and conditioned - a position that built the concept of the dignity of man.
The idea here, I believe, "cannot be explained" meaning that man are not these two things entirely. Man is not entirely two things which are clearly definable, with each their own unique limitations "determined" and "conditioned."
We would have to define each of these things and then declare men are not those things. I already agree with the author here, actually. Men are not, to my understanding, determined and conditioned.
How are men defined, really?
Can men be defined? Does not the human condition mean many things at least in a sense that men are not one thing for extended periods of time?
Determinism: A theory or doctrine that acts of the will.
Conditioned: Brought or put into a specific state.
Page 32 & 33
"Dignity of man" Francis says people are "trying to hold on to" but man does not know how to, because they've lost the truth that man was created in the image of God.
An unprogrammed man who really revolts (against the Reformation) has what Francis says is true moral guilt.
What is "true moral guilt?"
The revolting, unprogrammed man understands Christ died for them, but is leading an insurrection against the then-established truth of the crucifixion of Jesus.
The Author writes about "tampering" with the "scriptural concept" of true, moral guilt...
Implying that the "true" implies that law & order directly from Scriptures has precedence. Also implying "true moral guilt" in a way which means all who follow Christ are interpreting the laws of Christ in the same way.
What even is "true moral guilt?"
To better understand Christian "true moral guilt," perhaps we can study other contexts of what guilt means.
When I want to learn more about another ideology, I tend to think I need to read raw manifesto rather than a blog with the rambling of some other newbie.
What are the main players in philosophical influence?
Some men are unsightly. Some seem handsome but then are ugly after they start talking. Some look and sound right, but their actions are unbecoming. Some men get everything right but are only holding it together through routine or repetition; they cannot withstand adversity. Some are great with adversity but have a personality that makes socializing with them unfortunate.
Like this young man who just sat at on the couch beside me. Initially he appeared put-together, but now I have no doubt that he's an asshole, because he just put his feet up on the coffee table like he's at home. Either he knows exactly what he's doing and doesn't care, or he's just that careless. Yet, when I spoke to him in regards to moving from the couch to the table - he seemed pleasant.
When I think of morality, I think in terms of philosophical underpinnings of my own society's current usable set of beliefs.
Attempt to chew on "true moral guilt," I must look into reading many bits of differing viewpoints on what it means to those who hold differing value of similar ideas.
I suppose what I'd like to know is how much of the idea that "true moral guilt" actually exists in other mindful learners & writers.
I'm imagining myself losing my ego through dance with someone, listening to Virtuoso by Lonelieness, Sace
The "true moral guilt" is the author of Escape From Reason, going on about Reformers who were fully aware and were convicted on the belief of Jesus' crucifixion. For them to revolt, the author is saying they must've felt truly toward their own guiltiness.
Everything in the biblical system goes back to God.
Everything is under the apex of the system.
Apex: The highest point
Apex is also the point in a turn where in racing, it is the most optimal point to pass through a curve. Every curve in racing has an apex.
True moral guilt. What is it and why does it matter to the author?
I don't really understand what "true moral guilt" is. I'm having a hard time with this text here.
"They undrstood that Jesus died [for them]." Perhaps someone recognizing the importance of the belief system around the era after Reformation, speaks to just how serious and in trouble people felt during that time.
A time when revolting against the ays of things was perhaps more controversial than some of their sin?
Francis writes on the idea that the Bible declares God as a personal God and an infinite God. A personal-infinite God.
The author states that God created all things out of nothing.
Francis brings up the apex of Christianity. In his words of course, it all begins with a personal-infinite God. "This is the beginning and apex of the whole and everything flows from this in a non-contradictory way."
Why would he use "non-contradictory?" Was there some form or argument about the writing which led hime (Francis Schaeffer) to feeling some part of this would contradict his passage? Perhaps he was implying merely that flow was like in a way of a river, as if it would not ever change direction.
Gods of the East are finite but not personal.
Gods of the West are personal but very limited
Only God is infinite, unlike nature - which is finite. I would go as far to say that everything which isn't God is finite.
Francis shares a perspective which is regarding the use of a chasm to explain God in terms of the all-powerful.
"But says the Bible, when you come on to the side of man's personality, you have something quite different. The chasm is at a different point.
|====== Chasm Man | Man Chasm ======= | Animal | Animal Plant | Plant Machine | Machine
I believe the author was trying to make the point that there is now a clear distinction when faced with the perhaps, consciousness of man.
Page 35 & 36
He writes that because man was made in the image of God, man was made to have a personal relationship with him.
I still do not understand the meaning or purpose of the ==chasm==. He writes that man's relationship is upward and "not merely downward."
But the main point I think is that the Author is referring to how men associate to God's others creations.
The Bible rejects the view [that man relates only to nature]."
Man is finite. We are not infinite. Yet we are truly personal.
Again, I'm lost on what it means to be recognized as "truly personal."
No wait - the author writes, "We are related to God in the way we are personal."
Renaissance women were free at the expense of general immortality. Read Burckhardt (1818 - 1897).
Lyric ports - "spiritual love" - ideal love Novelists and comic poets - sensual love
Men act the way they think.
The autonomous man found himself in a duality.
Dante fell in love with one woman at first sight and loved her all his life and yet married another who bore his children and washed his dishes.
I think the =chasm= then implies a certain division between man from where God is and where all other finite, impersonal things exist, which were also created by God, but are not personal in the way which implies they were created "in the image of God."
The Whole Man
The soul is not more important than the body.
So I suppose that is to say the soul has a higher priority than the body, so it should be "above" the other, in the way that is presented in the next able.
Soul --------------- Body
The Humanist position holds that the body and autonomous mind of man became more important than grace. In this way, The nature of Humanism, if you will, ate up grace.
- God is interested in the whole man
- The Fall affected the whole man
- There is redemption for the whole man
Reformers [in Holland, known as] Anglo-Saxon Christianity emphasized Lordship of Christ in culture and authority of Scriptures.
The Renaissance man [created a dualism] which paved the way for modern forms of Humanism with modern man's sorrows.
Every modern science was started by those loving in the consensus and setting of Christianity. Read J. Robert Oppenheimer
I think the Author is assuming the position that it was because of Christianity that created a "climate of thought" for men to "investigate the form of the universe."
To me, it just seems too arrogant and/or pompous to make the claim that Christ is the only way. Yet in my own lack of knowledge, I believe this reality that there is some other thing which exists that is somehow better than the faith in Christ.
I am unfortunately not as declarative with things I believe. My Dad is no longer around to prove me that I'm wrong, though - so I might as well start taking my life seriously.
Jean-Paul Sartre holds that something exists rather than nothing exists.
No matter what man thinks, he has to deal with the fact and problem that there is something there.
Francis states that Christianity gives an explanation as to why "it" is objectively there. As to the reasoning of the existence of God in a place where man can become so evil & cruel.
Eastern thinking Hebrew-Christian tradition affirms God has created a true universe outside of himself. The Author asks himself of what that means, "outside of himself" (of God).
The universe is not an extension of the essence of God. It is not just a dream of God.
Francis makes the claim that Christianity is the basis to objective reality and also is what creates or establishes the machine involved in cause and effect of reality.
Novum Organum Scientiarum
Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over nature.
Dominion - religion and faith
- arts and sciences (can be repaired or altered) Nature (created by God as it exists)
Francis Bacon did not see science as autonomous, for it was placed within the revelation of the Sciptures at the point of the Fall.
Yet within that "form" science (and art) was free of intrinsic value before both men and God.
What "form" is the Author referring to? What does that even mean?
Furthermore, I go back to ask the Author: Is there a reasonable God in Christianity? Did God create a reasonable universe? In his words, these things exist, but I wonder if they were created as such or if that was merely the author's interpretation of it.
Francis says that early scientists shared the outlook of Christianity in believing that there is a reasonable God. Out of this the Author tends to believe perhaps scientists may not have had the wares on figuring out the next step for the direction that modern science was supposed to, or indeed did find, in the absence of Christianity through the Reformation.
Nature had to be free from the Byzantine mentality and returned to a proper biblical emphasis; it was the biblical mentality which gave birth to modern science.
- Early science was natural science, but it was not naturalistic
- Uniformly of natural causes
- Did not conceive of God and man as caught in the machine (the matrix)
- God gave knowledge to man
- Knowledge concerning himself
- And of the universe and history
- Man was not "part of" the machinery
- Man could affect the machine of cause and effect
Grace (God and man) Nature (Science and art)
By the time of Kant and Rousseau a sense of autonomy was fully developed and was derived from Thomas Aquinas.
Previously what existed was nature and grace. Rationalism evolved into nature and freedom from which there was no concept of revelation in any area.
Nature has totally devoured grace
Grace ==> Freedom Nature ==> Nature
Noumenal: a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses.
The phenomenal becomes the noumenal world of the universals. (Not sure what this means)
Nature now so totally autonomous that determinism begins to emerge.
Physics are, in Francis' views, the "machine" portion of the universe.
The indivudual's freedom is seen not only as freedom without the need of redemption, but as absolute freedom.
The Bohemian ideal is casting aside the civilization that Rousseau and his followers believed was restraining man's freedom; Naturalistic science becomes an enemy. Modern men who have not come to terms with being machines (mortal, autonomous), begin to hate science.
WHat is autonomous freedom? Freedom in which the individual is the center fo the universe.
Autonomous freedom: Freedom without restraint
Rousseau argues for true freedom; a freedom where only self-expression is left.
From Greeks onward:
- Rationalistic: Man begins absolutely and totally from himself
- Gathers particulars, formulates universals
- Belief in the rational: Not related to rationalism
- A belief that man's aspiration for the validity of reason was well founded.
- They thought in terms of antithesis. If a certain thing was true, the opposite was not true.
- Such as morals: One thing was right, therefore the opposite was not right.
It is the only way man can think.
Rejecting the rational and the antithesis is "on the basis" of the same things.
Thinking in terms of an antithesis is wrong, means we use antithesis to deny antithesis.
The basis of classical logic is that A is not non-A.
That's all I got for now.
This is Fenix Book Reviews
I'll be getting into the next few pages here shortly. What I need to do is read, write the notes, then transcribe the notes into a digital form. It's not enough that I just do one of those things unto itself; there's a long process in regurgitating what I'm reading.